SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the companies==people-er-does-not-compute dept.
gishzida writes:
"According to a Reuters report Supreme Court signals support for corporate religious claims, "The U.S. Supreme Court appeared poised on Tuesday to open the door to companies' religious-based objections to government regulations as justices weighed whether business owners can object to part of President Barack Obama's healthcare law. From the article:
During a 90-minute oral argument, 30 minutes more than usual, a majority of the nine justices appeared ready to rule that certain for-profit entities have the same religious rights to object as individuals do. A ruling along those lines would likely only apply to closely held companies. As in most close cases of late, Justice Anthony Kennedy will likely be the deciding vote. Based on his questions, it was unclear whether the court would ultimately rule that the companies had a right to an exemption from the contraception provision of President Barack Obama's 2010 Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.
The dozens of companies involved in the litigation do not all oppose every type of birth control. Some object only to emergency contraceptive methods, such as the so-called morning-after pill, which they view as akin to abortion.
The case marks the second time Obamacare has featured prominently before the Supreme Court. In 2012, the court upheld by a 5-4 vote the constitutionality of the act's core feature requiring people to get health insurance. Although the case has no bearing on the overall healthcare law, it features its own volatile mix of religious rights and reproductive rights. A capacity crowd filled the marble courtroom, while outside hundreds of demonstrators, most of them women, protested loudly in an early spring snowstorm.
We already know that the SCOTUS thinks corporations are citizens, do you think the SCOTUS should allow corporations to have religious beliefs too?"
(Score: 1) by blackest_k on Wednesday March 26 2014, @10:23PM
Surely the morning after pill doesn't actually abort anything other than the chance of a sperm meeting an ovum?
if the morning after pill is abortion so is a condom , premature ejaculation, and a headache.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nobuddy on Wednesday March 26 2014, @11:34PM
If hobby Lobby really cared about their funds going against their beliefs- they would quit buying from China, who has a one-child per family policy that includes forced abortions if you get pregnant without permission.
But THAT would impact their bottom line, so all the sudden religious belief is not important to them.
(Score: 1) by dioptase on Thursday March 27 2014, @01:18PM
You're confusing China's government with the people living under the rules. It would be like refusing to do business with you because I object to the laws of the state you live in. A least you have a vote and have some measure of control over the laws of your state. People in China don't.
On the other hand, many people in China prefer to have one child anyway. Refusing to do business with individuals you disagree with would be rational.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 27 2014, @03:41PM
A least you have a vote and have some measure of control over the laws of your state.
(have a vote) ^ (have some measure of control over the laws of your state) = False
Call me cynical.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by samwichse on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:48AM
Aw snap.
That argument was both harsh and devastating and I'm totally stealing it for future use.
(Score: 2, Informative) by youngatheart on Thursday March 27 2014, @02:00AM
Depends on your definitions of course. That's the real center of the debate that nobody seems willing to address. If a fertilized egg is a person, as it is by their perspective, then morning after pills are absolutely abortion aids, but nothing else you mentioned is.
Of course, if a fertilized egg is a person then anything causing a miscarriage carries with it the possibility of killing another person. The problem is, they happen [babycentre.co.uk] most [about.com] of [pregnancycorner.com] the time [americanpregnancy.org].
I consider myself anti-abortion, but have a hard time calling myself pro-life because I can't find the popular definition logical. I can simultaneously believe that people are wonderful and special and valuable and still not feel that a bundle of tissue is the same thing as a person regardless of its potential.
I believe in the idea of "innocent until proven guilty." To me, establishing a legal system on the idea that the potential to be guilty is not proof of guilt is the most logical possible system. Potential is not the same as reality. Likewise, I don't believe that the potential to become a person is the same thing as being a person.
The real, and usually unspoken, debate is "what makes a person a person?" I think we as a society have already addressed the issue with how we handle other issues. If a person is brain dead, we consider them to have no inherent right to life. We consider living human tissue as disposable when we talk about cancer cells or even amputations or tooth extractions.
Legally, it is logical to conclude that an organism grown with primarily human DNA with brain activity constitutes a living person and anything short of that isn't. But logic and law have only a tenuous connection. The US also has a strong legal tradition of protecting the rights of people to believe whatever they like so long as it doesn't cause harm to others. This protection is fundamental to creating a free society. I shudder at the thought that the courts should be able to decide everyone must agree with a particular belief system. Were it not for this protection of belief, the US could have become a Christian or Muslim nation where professing any other belief was illegal.
So whether you're atheistic, monotheistic, agnostic or polytheistic, it is imperative to a free society that we agree to protect the right to disagree and live our lives according to our own beliefs. That is why this SCOTUS decision is so important. It pits the freedom of the individual to practice their beliefs against the right of the government to force people to act against them. It is why I can believe that Hobby Lobby believes something wrong and still hope the government will not force them to act against their beliefs.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Open4D on Thursday March 27 2014, @01:42PM
But Wikipedia says [wikipedia.org] "The primary mechanism of action of [various forms of emergency contraceptive pills and IUDs] is to prevent fertilization ..."
And How Stuff Works says [howstuffworks.com] "Conception can occur as many as five days after sex or possibly longer, as strong, healthy sperm can survive for about that many days ..."
Not that it matters IMO. There's nothing special about fertilization. I don't value (1 sperm + 1 egg) any differently whether it's before or after fertilization. I'm no more inclined to believe religious people telling me that an embryo needs protection because it has a soul than I would if they told me a corpse needs protection because it has a soul.
(Score: 1) by youngatheart on Thursday March 27 2014, @02:40PM
You're right about the timeline of course. I didn't get too deep into it because it can also occur in 30 minutes too.
(Score: 1) by blackest_k on Thursday March 27 2014, @05:43PM
Thanks for the resources
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_soon_can_a_woman_bec ome_pregnant_after_ejaculation [answers.com].
"a women only becomes medically 'pregnant' once the fertilized egg implants in the uterus. The fertilized egg will travel down the fallopian tube and into the uterus, the whole time dividing into a bundle of cells called a blastocyst, and this process will take 5 days"
It's possible that there may not be an egg at the time of having sex as sperm can hang around for around a week.
If you use the definition medically pregnant then you have up to 5 days after sex in which a pregnancy can be prevented as opposed to aborted.
It is by no means a forgone conclusion that the blastocyst will embed in the uterus. Thats why trying for a baby isn't instantly successful most of the time.
But with people who have such faith in the unprovable, having evidence seems to have no effect in generating a rational thought process.
(Score: 1) by Immerman on Thursday March 27 2014, @08:05PM
Not quite, while sperm can survive for 3-5 days within a woman's body, fertilization may also happen almost immediately. Plan B for example, while not completely understood, appears to execute a multi-pronged attack - primarily it reduces the chance of ovulation if it hasn't already occurred, giving the sperm a chance to die before encountering the egg. But if ovulation occurs anyway it also reduces the chance of fertilization, and if fertilization occurs it reduces the chance that the zygote will be able to implant in the uterine wall. Once implantation occurs the drug seems to have no effect.